I didn’t introduce the term “cognitively meaningful” - it’s in the comic we’re all replying to.

This pretense that myself and others don’t understand what’s trying to be said is faulty. The comic would have worked had it said “substantively meaningful” instead…

…but my point (fuck Carnap, he’s not here, and people need to think for themselves and present their own opinions from time to time) is that in human collective societies, truth claims themselves are as meaningful as they are broadly believed - or at least discussed.

That is dealing in some sense of human social meaning (and is also a statement on how hard it is to avoid each other these days). Where as logical positivists are trying to approximate some statement about the validity of perceptions of the universe, perceptions which which themselves can’t escape our human contexts for understanding them.

So the logical positivists are discussing tools for gathering meanings the universe immediately cooperates with, where as I’m discussing what humans will co-operate with (and hence what is cognitively meaningful to our social brains). Which I find more interesting… As logical positivism is a boring, old, basic, and unavoidable premise for any reasonable person.

I’m superior, because I found an errant word in the comic and made a bunch of commenters online actually have an interesting discussion. :P j/k